9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 and ₹ 2,28,494.70 respectively. The remaining part of the impugned order is not disturbed/interfered. Appeal allowed in part. - E/00200/2002 - Final Order No. 41853/2017 - Dated:- 28-8-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi CS, Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri M.A. Mudimannan Adv. For the Respondent : Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) ORDER The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots and Billets of non-alloy steel in their factory at Salem. During the period from 01.09.2007 to 31.03.2000, Compounded Levy Scheme was in force with regard to steel products and duty has to be discharged based on the Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) fixed by the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .01/2000/Commissioner, dated 15.02.2002. The claim of the item no. 1 for ₹ 5,05,556/- and item no.3 for ₹ 2,73,022/- is rejected by the Commissioner in his Order-in-Original on the ground that the appellant had not paid the duty liability in advance as required under 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The claim of the item no. 2 for ₹ 1,50,417/- is rejected on the ground that the stoppage period is less than 7 days in terms of Rules 96ZO of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Hence this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for appellant Shri Mudimannan submitted that appellant is not pressing the claim shown in Sl.No.2 in the table above, where the closure of factory is for 3 days and 13 hrs. Further, that for the period show in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the claim shown in Sl.No.2 for the period 04.09.1999 to 08.09.1999. It is also submitted that appellant does not dispute the amount arrived by the Commissioner as eligible amount for abatement. The reason for rejection of abatement for the period show in Sl.No.1 and 3 is that appellant did not pay the duty in advance as provided in proviso 96ZO. The issue has been considered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the appellant's own case in W.P. 22656/2001, which reads as under : - The second claim of abatement for the period from 15.09.1998 to 23.09.1998, was rejected on the basis that duty was not paid in advance. Mr. Jayachandran learned counsel for the petitioner produced a Circular No.485/51/99-Cx., dated 15.09.1999 [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
